3 ms·
I think Nvidia's claim that the 3090 costs anywhere near $1500 is even more bold. They might as well claim it costs $15, for all the good it does anyone actuall
by pixelpoet 6y ago
I think Nvidia's claim that the 3090 costs anywhere near $1500 is even more bold. They might as well claim it costs $15, for all the good it does anyone actually trying to buy one.
- snvzz 6y agoIf there's no availability for the NVIDIA cards, and the AMD cards are actually available, what it means in terms of pricing is that the gap is even bigger than $500. Considering these NVIDIA cards have capped FP32/64 performance and don't have ML drivers like Titan series do, the one sensible case for buying them is gone.
- zamadatix 6y ago3090 is still great for rendering workloads where you want the VRAM and ray tracing hardware but don't want to pay the Quadro tax. Other than that though yeah it's just the "don't care about price" performer.
- snvzz 6y agoThat's only if the drivers allow for leveraging that. AIUI FP32 and FP64 are gimped.
- zamadatix 6y agoThey have some gimped capabilities(I don't think FP32 as that's needed for games) but as I said you don't need any of those features for most 3D rendering tools so it's not worth worrying about the driver, you can see the 3090 wipe the floor with the Titan RTX in rendering workloads here https://techgage.com/article/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3090-proviz-performance/ https://techgage.com/article/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3090-proviz-... "it has half <category> performance" doesn't immediately make it worth 4x the money on an uncapped card, especially if your task doesn't involve a capped feature.